Response to Richard answer...I studied with the JWs for over 10 years. I strongly feel that the speaking in tongues is also for today. Paul did not rule out speaking in tongues and yes the devil is tricky...Paul merely said that to prophecy was greater because it does indeed edify the Church...speaking in tongues is not mere mumble jumble...it is prayer language...satan does not rebuke himself. Unless a JW actually get bold enough to witness the gift they will always speak against it. The BIBLE says even in JW New World Translation..."if there is not an interpret of speaking in tongues...then that individual should speak only to GOD and him/herself...that's a contradiction to what they teach about speaking in tongues...they can't just use part of what Paul said to rule it out..."ALL scripture is inspired of GOD for reproving and setting things straight...
Question 2: Why do the witnesses not teach that the original Sabbath is on Saturday...3.why do they follow some practice from the Roman Catholic if they teach that the Catholic Religion is a false religion..."a little bit of leaven spoils the whole lump." don't get me wrong...they bring forth much truth...However, they are not perfect in all that they teach... The BIBLE says that no one knows when the end will come....5. They have predicted the end and failed...Isn't that considered as being a false prophet?
THE ORIGINLAL WATCHTOWER HAD THE ILLUMINATI SYMBOL ON IT. RUSSELL USED THE SYMBOL OF THE sun god Ra on the cover of his books...also on his tomb stone...but, yet they are his followers...we are talking about freemasons symbols...6. Why does one of their Watchtower illustration with a hand coming from the cloud has a subliminal picture of what looks like a demon's face in the hand and there are more...satan enters in GOD's house and takes a seat as well...7. If they have an illustrator who does this...why is that person or persons still there?? Jesus commanded to live in the world but not be a part of it. 8 Why do the JWs announce and uses dates of events if those particular dates are not in the Bible??? Revelation tells us do not take away or add to God's words...9. Why do they use a Bible that was translated by unqualified individuals?
Greetings again Darlene,
I truly appreciate the follow-up questions. I will do my best to offer a fair response. While I believe that there are many errors within the organization and belief system of the Watchtower, I hold much love for the people who are inside it. It is out of my love for them that I share my disagreements with respect. I try to answer questions about them truthfully and accurately without showing any hostility towards the people themselves. Please keep that in mind as I respond to your questions.
1) I didn't actually see a question in there. I assume that you were backing up your reasoning in support of speaking in tongues in modern days. I am happy to allow your comments to remain here for other readers to see a basis for your support.
2) The JW's teach that the Jews kept the Sabbath on the 7th day of the week, from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. They do not teach that the Sabbath must be kept today because 2 Cor. 3:7-11 states that it was to be done away with. They will tell you that there are different kinds of Sabbath and point you to Heb. 4:4-11 for one that they state they keep regularly.
3) This is a great question, one that I think Brenton Hepburn (another expert) could shine some light on. The way I see it, they state that they must be NO part of this world, and yet many of their customs and traditions have origins in other religions that they openly denigrate. I would imagine it would be very difficult to completely separate every aspect from every religion. There wouldn't be much left to work with.
4) There isn't a number 4 in your question.
5) Yes, I believe that the Watchtower is a false prophet. The reply that you will get from JW's is that Deuteronomy 18:22 says that false prophets proclaim "in the name of Jehovah", and that they don't technically do that. They will also say that the early publications clearly stated they weren't prophets. I believe there are far too many times in print where they have declared otherwise.
5b) Regarding Russell belonging to the Freemasons. I have read many theories on this. I think it is wise on this matter to read more balanced material. Despite some circumstantial evidence, usually regarding symbols, I am not convinced that he was a Freemason. Rather, I think he read too much into symbols and measurements.
6) There is a lot to be said regarding the illustrations that the artists have placed in their magazines. Of course, there are many conspiracy theorists with claims that subliminal messages have been introduced through their artwork. Once again, I really try not to read too much into that. There may have been some "rogue" artists take some liberties (much like some Disney artists have done in their films), but in no way do I believe that the powers-that-be within the Watchtower intentionally designed controversial art. I am much more concerned about the obvious diagrams that leave Jesus completely out of the picture.
7) See number 6.
8) JW's will tell you that those dates derived from the Bible. There is no excuse for 1874, 1925, 1975, etc., but the person who came up with those dates will attempt to utilize scripture in support of setting those dates. They still hold very tight to 607 B.C. and 1914 A.D. To some degree, they still hold to 1919 A.D., but they have backpedaled on 1918 as well as the dates listed above. I think they have gotten wise to the idea of setting a date for Armageddon. They can't drop 607 and 1914 without losing a crucial aspect of their being. Without 607, they can't have 1914. Without 1914, they can't have 1919. They were supposedly chosen by God as the religion of choice in 1919. So, without 607, they weren't ever chosen. See the dilemma?
9) They didn't release the names of the translators so they would not take credit for the NWT. Of course, the names and backgrounds were eventually leaked, and this created some difficulty considering that none of them had any lengthy education in the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages. In my opinion, the Old Testament isn't that bad. It adheres pretty closely to a concordance without major theological dispute. I do feel that they took many liberties with the word selection of the New Testament by utilizing a word choice that they felt best fit their theological viewpoint. [i.e. "obeisance" instead of "worship" for proskuneo] That said, if I were being completely fair to them, there have been enough translations done that somewhere you can find another one that matches what they have for most any particular passage. They can also point to other "experts" who have labeled the NWT as the best translation. That makes it more difficult to argue the validity of their translation.
I hope I was able to help answer your questions. Thank you for the opportunity.